Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

log_jammin:Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

Aar1012:log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

Mentat:So the Democrats will take his money, they just want him to stay away from them. Lovely party, the Democrats.

I fail to see how this would be different with any other party. Establishment Republicans are regretting their embrace of Tea Party freshman. The difference is that they shine the spotlight elsewhere by manufacturing scandals so they can point their fingers at the Obama and the Democrats.

quatchi:Aar1012: Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?

It's your media more than anything else, specifically those claiming to be in the news business.

Filled with false equivalency fallacies, softball questions in exchange for access and lots of tabloitastic fluff.

They have failed you so hard.

I completely agree. Everything up to, through, and beyond the Government Shutdown is hardly being questioned or held up to scrutiny. It's all about a website that will be working fine well before the midterms.

I watched Ted Cruz's moment of honesty bite him in the ass by saying there was not much that could be done about Obamacare. His base and the House royally chastized him, which is why he pulled that pointless filibuster fiasco in the first place. He did everything he could do to save face with that sham. Well the Government shut down, and it cost us how many billions? But that's old news because Obama can't lead or something.

Alphax:GoldSpider: Alphax: Propaganda. And even NPR is helping push it.

How dare they report on things that happen. NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'

Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Letting subject matter experts drive policy decisions is a bad idea. Their input is critical, but they are operating in a context where things like compromise and prioritization are not really an issue. If you ask a doctor, "would it be better if no one smoked cigarettes?", they're all going to say yes. But turning that into a public policy that is appropriate, cost-effective and doesn't lead to too many unintended consequences is out of their realm. And also don't forget that they have their own agendas as well; they might not be as obvious as the defense lobbyist advocating for a hawkish foreign policy, but self-interest still needs to be considered when getting their input.

Alphax:'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'

On that issue, I'll concede that I'd love to see just ONE reporter ask the people leading the latest challenge to Obamacare why they believe that 'Plan B' is an "abortion drug" when it is no such thing, in any sense of the word.

Obamacare glitches are the death knell for Democrats in 2014? That's a pretty stupid rehash of right-wing talking points, NPR.

Want immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship? Vote for Democrats.Want background checks for gun purchases? Vote for Democrats.Want to protect gay and lesbian people from employment discrimination? Vote for Democrats.Want to raise the minimum wage? Vote for Democrats.Want to pass the Buffet Rule? Vote for Democrats.Want to reverse voter suppression laws? Vote for Democrats.Want to preserve a woman's right to choose? Vote for Democrats.Want to close Guantanamo Bay? Vote for Democrats.Want to invest in infrastructure? Vote for Democrats.Want to invest in renewable energy? Vote for Democrats.Want to invest in science, education, technology, and public safety? Vote for Democrats.Want to pass a jobs bill? Vote for Democrats.Want a functioning Congress? Vote for Democrats.

Want to continue being able to go to the doctor? Vote for Democrats.

Because guess what, NPR. People like being able to go to the doctor. People like being able to take their kids to the doctor without having to skip paying the rent. People like being able to go to the doctor without having to declare bankruptcy. People like being able to get medicine without skipping food. People like being able to get preventative care to keep a small problem from become catastrophic. So while you, NPR, may view providing healthcare to millions of Americans as Obama's Achilles' heel, real people in the real world are thrilled. And your shouting "GLITCHES BAD!" into the echo chamber is not only uninteresting, it makes you seem irrelevant.

Alphax:Aar1012: log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

How dare they report on things that happen. NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'

Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Letting subject matter experts drive policy decisions is a bad idea. Their input is critical, but they are operating in a context where things like compromise and prioritization are not really an issue. If you ask a doctor, "would it be better if no one smoked cigarettes?", they're all going to say yes. But turning that into a public policy that is appropriate, cost-effective and doesn't lead to too many unintended consequences is out of their realm. And also don't forget that they have their own agendas as well; they might not be as obvious as the defense lobbyist advocating for a hawkish foreign policy, but self-interest still needs to be considered when getting their input.

How dare they report on things that happen. NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'

Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Letting subject matter experts drive policy decisions is a bad idea. Their input is critical, but they are operating in a context where things like compromise and prioritization are not really an issue. If you ask a doctor, "would it be better if no one smoked cigarettes?", they're all going to say yes. But turning that into a public policy that is appropriate, cost-effective and doesn't lead to too many unintended consequences is out of their realm. And also don't forget that they have their own agendas as well; they might not be as obvious as the defense lobbyist advocating for a hawkish foreign policy, but self-interest still needs to be considered when getting their input.

You work for Cato?

No. But congratulations on summoning the analytical and reasoning skills required to deliver that powerful counterargument.

How dare they report on things that happen. NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'

Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Letting subject matter experts drive policy decisions is a bad idea. Their input is critical, but they are operating in a context where things like compromise and prioritization are not really an issue. If you ask a doctor, "would it be better if no one smoked cigarettes?", they're all going to say yes. But turning that into a public policy that is appropriate, cost-effective and doesn't lead to too many unintended consequences is out of their realm. And also don't forget that they have their own agendas as well; they might not be as obvious as the defense lobbyist advocating for a hawkish foreign policy, but self-interest still needs to be considered when getting their input.

You work for Cato?

No. But congratulations on summoning the analytical and reasoning skills required to deliver that powerful counterargument.

Well, I'm mystified why you'd want Cato anywhere near public policy. They were created by the Koch Brothers as a way to come up with fake intellectual sounding justifications for their 'screw everyone else' policies.

How dare they report on things that happen. NPR is almost as bad, anymore, as some Murdoch rag.

They are pretty bad at anything related to domestic politics lately.

'For today's discussion of women's health, we have this doctor with decades of experience in women's health, and we have this guy from the Cato Institute.'

Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Letting subject matter experts drive policy decisions is a bad idea. Their input is critical, but they are operating in a context where things like compromise and prioritization are not really an issue. If you ask a doctor, "would it be better if no one smoked cigarettes?", they're all going to say yes. But turning that into a public policy that is appropriate, cost-effective and doesn't lead to too many unintended consequences is out of their realm. And also don't forget that they have their own agendas as well; they might not be as obvious as the defense lobbyist advocating for a hawkish foreign policy, but self-interest still needs to be considered when getting their input.

You work for Cato?

No. But congratulations on summoning the analytical and reasoning skills required to deliver that powerful counterargument.

Well, I'm mystified why you'd want Cato anywhere near public policy. They were created by the Koch Brothers as a way to come up with fake intellectual sounding justifications for their 'screw everyone else' policies.

I could give fark-all about Cato. They're not the point, but apparently you have enough of a bug up your butt about them that you can't see through your own rage. Replace "Cato" with a public policy group that you *do* like, the point still stands.

Aar1012:log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?

This "It's just a website" routine is reminiscent of the "It's just about sex" trope of the Clinton era. Unlike then, however, millions of people are experiencing the galactic failure of Obama Care in a very personal, intimate, and perhaps even life/health threatening way. Attempting to trivialize it in hopes that low-information voters won't notice will prove futile; their daily experiences in dealing with the fallout of lost plans, lost doctors, and higher premiums will see to that.

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen:I could give fark-all about Cato. They're not the point, but apparently you have enough of a bug up your butt about them that you can't see through your own rage. Replace "Cato" with a public policy group that you *do* like, the point still stands.

If you're going to make a point about how 'experts' should not be in charge of public policy (there are some arguments against technocrats), you should at least cite 'experts' and not a political shill organization of pure ideology -- the exact opposite of 'experts.' It undercuts your point.

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen:I could give fark-all about Cato. They're not the point, but apparently you have enough of a bug up your butt about them that you can't see through your own rage. Replace "Cato" with a public policy group that you *do* like, the point still stands.

Yes, they ARE the point. Balancing someone with hard knowledge, with someone who produces misinformation, is worthless.

DarnoKonrad:Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: I could give fark-all about Cato. They're not the point, but apparently you have enough of a bug up your butt about them that you can't see through your own rage. Replace "Cato" with a public policy group that you *do* like, the point still stands.

If you're going to make a point about how 'experts' should not be in charge of public policy (there are some arguments against technocrats), you should at least cite 'experts' and not a political shill organization of pure ideology -- the exact opposite of 'experts.' It undercuts your point.

Again, I'm not arguing the merits of Cato. Replace "Cato" with "Brookings". My point is that you defer to the doctor for the medicine/science/"technical" aspects of the topic. You don't defer to her on public policy. Maybe you don't want to defer to Cato or Brookings either, depending on your ideology, but no matter the ideology you still sure as hell don't defer to the doctor.

jjorsett:Aar1012: log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?

This "It's just a website" routine is reminiscent of the "It's just about sex" trope of the Clinton era. Unlike then, however, millions of people are experiencing the galactic failure of Obama Care in a very personal, intimate, and perhaps even life/health threatening way. Attempting to trivialize it in hopes that low-information voters won't notice will prove futile; their daily experiences in dealing with the fallout of lost plans, lost doctors, and higher premiums will see to that.

At least 60% of those complainers cannot be helped, because they are obstinate and will not allow themselves to take advantage of positive effects a law they have been programmed to hate. It's the adult equivalent of doing a bad job at chores so you are not asked to do them again.

Eddie Barzoom:At least 60% of those complainers cannot be helped, because they are obstinate and will not allow themselves to take advantage of positive effects a law they have been programmed to hate.

Aar1012:log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?

LOL. Even with the "Goverment Shut Down" (we've been shut down and on Continuing Resolution since 2010.) Things are still working better than the healthcare web site. And that's pretty farking sad. But be clear, the "shutdown" isn't just this latest pissing contest. It's been a circle jerk for years, I love how the latest dispute has become "THE SHUTDOWN".

Yea, the website isn't health care. We get that. What it is though is the first major step in rolling out the obamacare turd and represents how poorly this adminstration has a handle on the whole thing. This should have been an easy mile stone to achieve , but it was so farked up it's laughable. it's like letting your teenager take the car out for the first time after they beg and plead for weeks how responsible they are and they back it through the garage door.

It's not about just a website, its about how the whole thing was handled and this adminstrations repsonse to it.

What is it that libtards love to say about chickens? yea, you got some feathers on your pants, and on your chin too.

log_jammin:Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

Zeb Hesselgresser:Eddie Barzoom: At least 60% of those complainers cannot be helped, because they are obstinate and will not allow themselves to take advantage of positive effects a law they have been programmed to hate.

I'm playing devils-ass advocate against a previous ass-grab. So I will allow it.

Danger Mouse:Aar1012: log_jammin: Should President Obama be as unpopular once the 2014 midterm campaign is in full swing as he is now, there are likely to be more than a few vulnerable Democrats who'd prefer that he stay as far away from their districts as possible.

I will never ever again vote for a president that can't program.

Seriously, the president is unpopular because a website couldn't work at launch. It's not like he shut the damned government down.

/What the hell is wrong with us?

LOL. Even with the "Goverment Shut Down" (we've been shut down and on Continuing Resolution since 2010.) Things are still working better than the healthcare web site. And that's pretty farking sad. But be clear, the "shutdown" isn't just this latest pissing contest. It's been a circle jerk for years, I love how the latest dispute has become "THE SHUTDOWN".

Yea, the website isn't health care. We get that. What it is though is the first major step in rolling out the obamacare turd and represents how poorly this adminstration has a handle on the whole thing. This should have been an easy mile stone to achieve , but it was so farked up it's laughable. it's like letting your teenager take the car out for the first time after they beg and plead for weeks how responsible they are and they back it through the garage door.

It's not about just a website, its about how the whole thing was handled and this adminstrations repsonse to it.

What is it that libtards love to say about chickens? yea, you got some feathers on your pants, and on your chin too.

Eddie Barzoom:Zeb Hesselgresser: Eddie Barzoom: At least 60% of those complainers cannot be helped, because they are obstinate and will not allow themselves to take advantage of positive effects a law they have been programmed to hate.

I'm playing devils-ass advocate against a previous ass-grab. So I will allow it.

jjorsett:This "It's just a website" routine is reminiscent of the "It's just about sex" trope of the Clinton era. Unlike then, however, millions of people are experiencing the galactic failure of Obama Care in a very personal, intimate, and perhaps even life/health threatening way. Attempting to trivialize it in hopes that low-information voters won't notice will prove futile; their daily experiences in dealing with the fallout of lost plans, lost doctors, and higher premiums will see to that.

Interesting choice of words. Interesting, as in giant exaggeration. It's a "galactic failure" to members of the media and politicians of a certain party that aren't at all affected. A lot of people who might be affected by this aren't looking at cause and effect, or "Why did my insurance company screw me over?" Lots of people seem quite pleased to do no research and only listen to talking points in the media that just point fingers at the president. Meanwhile, my brother can go back onto mom's insurance until he's 26 or gets his own, and my friend can get covered screenings for her pre-existing conditions (i.e. cancer).

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen:Depends on the aspect of women's health you're talking about. If it's truly on the health/science side, then get the Cato guy out of there. If you're talking politics and public policy, then the doctor is the one who might well be out of place.

Here's a thought, let's not have women's health have anything to do with politics.